I just get tripped up when I see people disbelieve physics, especially laws that have been known for about 150 years!
The economics and energy balance is where I too am very skeptical, at least near term.
Quick back of envelope calculations gave me a payback time of about 10 years, so which is only a single order of magnitude off which can easily accumulate by lack of access to detailed plans.
I can not exclude they see something (or can charge themselves lower launch costs, etc.) that makes it entirely feasible, but also can't confirm its infeasible economically. For example I have no insight of what fraction of terrestrial datacenter establishment cost goes into various "frictions" like paying goverments and lawyers to gloss over all the details, paying permission taxes etc. I can see how space can become attractive in other ways.
Then again if you look at the energetic cost to do a training run, it seems MW facilities would suffice. So why do we read all the noise about restarting nuclear power plants or trying to secure new power plants strictly for AI? It certainly could make sense if governments are willing to throw top dollar at searching algorithmic / mathematical breakthroughs in cryptography. Even if the compute is overpriced, you could have a lot of LLM's reasoning in space to find the breakthroughs before strategic competitors do. Its a math and logic race unfolding before our eyes, and its getting next to no coverage.
That's not my experience at all. The majority of games, especially on Steam, work out of the box.
I would advise the opposite: Don't get an old box. Take your new box, take a new hard disk, and just install Bazzite (and pretend you don't know anything about Linux, just stick with the defaults).
That didn't work for me. I had my email, documents, some software I used on Windows and files it created (think Photoshop and PSDs). I needed time to find out if I could find similar/equivalent software on Linux, set up new workflows for my work and stuff like that. So I had my primary machine still on Windows and used the secondary to see how all this would work. And then gradually moved all the software, data, and workflows to Linux, until I didn't have anything left that could only work on Windows (well, except games I guess).
As for games, I think a lot of them DO work on Linux but it's easier for me to have dedicates gaming rig on Windows instead of guessing if this new game that I like will work on Linux.
You are mistaken if you think it is about transgression. Old forums had no algo feeds to manipulate the content you saw and steer you. This is the issue, not so much the content itself.
No our algorithmic manipulation was done through corporate media. Same monsters, different medium. It was the church, then newspapers, cable news, and now social media. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent
No. Citation neede. The issue is the moronic way energy auctions are done, first by setting the price to the highest source that can satisfy (always gas) but ignoring (!) geography. Then, phase 2, dropping the impossible providers (i.e. Scottish hydro in the North for South England), and doing another (much more expensive pass). The Octopus CEO had a succinct explainer recently, can't find the video...
this is not moronic. This is done everywhere in the world.
In fact, merit order does justify more ren deployment even if economics aren't that great, because operators will be paid according to merit order, needing less cfd's. You can also check out how much of the gas electricity price is just carbon tax. And how transmission spending evolved. And how CFD's for different tech evolved in each AR round
Correct me if I am wrong but the only reason nuclear is expensive is because of how costly the facilities are to build and maintain. If we were not setback during the anti-nuclear era, we would have gained economies of scale. The reason why solar is so cheap is for the exact same reason is it not? I am not an expert on this topic so take everything I say with a massive grain of salt as I am willing to be wrong on this.
Edit: After further reading it appears that solar will be the defacto affordable option in energy production, even with SMRs and streamlined construction in the picture. Perhaps a mix of renewables, better battery infra, and SMRs for stable sources of power is the future.
Power plants with high capex like nuclear have a hard time competing in a market where power is essentially free when it’s sunny or windy. Running something like a nuclear power plant only for a few hundred hours a year when it’s neither sunny nor windy is too expensive compared to (hydrogen) gas peakers (or other forms of storage)
nuclear can compete if we re-learn to build on time and on budget. Japanese abwr did cost 3bn and done in <4y. China does the same now for cheaper.
There's no such thing as free hydrogen, nor it will be
Even in China the case for nuclear isn't overwhelming. They are building a lot of nuclear relative to the rest of the world but its not that much compared to how much wind and solar they are deploying.
Yes. Mostly because of inland ban. Costwise their nuclear is extremely cheap, probably even cheaper than ren, but it's harder to scale (or unwillingness). But per capita they don't even match french deployments during messmer or swedish bwr units during peak
No. They are afraid to pollute downstream. Nuclear doesn't require that much water. Worstcase you can even deploy dry cooling or wastewater like palo verde
How is this not solving the core issue? You need to do both. Ensure the software is made (pay devs), and if you're funding this, make sure it is licensed as a public good (free, oss).
The problem with putting on band-aids over core structural issues is the government projects are going to run into the same fragmentation issues that private sector ones have. Open source is not a magic wand you can wave to fix that.
You only need to the solve the core issue. Unless you believe humans born on the European continent are inherently less intelligent or motivated than those born on American soil, then quite literally the problem will solve itself.
All humans are the same species and respond to the same incentives. Just create similar incentives here and stop trying to top-down solve all the symptoms with bandaids after the fact. It just doesn't work.
Name me one example of EU government created software that people have ever chosen to use voluntarily. Or heck, even one that people are forced to use but isn't downright terrible compared to a private alternative.
> The EU has no viable software industry because there's no real single market to fundraise from and sell into (no single capital market, no single language market, no single regulatory market…
Yes incentives matter. They are not the only factor when figuring out the outcome. Competitive structures, and the type of good being traded has a bearing as well.
Software is not like physical goods. Given the marginal costs of making additional units of software is effectively nil, and that network effects tend to lock users in, you will see the rise of behemoths that shrug off competition.
You see more competition when it comes to startups than a stalwart like Excel or word.
I can of course be wrong - but For major daily drivers type software (Gmail, word, etc.) , the incumbents aren’t going to be moved by simply increasing competition.
Does it matter to the OP's point how well-spoken you are? Biting down some non-constructive snark here.
Yes, English is a good lowest common language, and it is mostly that announcements are in English. But learning enough of the native language that you are at least puzzled enough to ask another passenger seems like a not very high and reasonable bar for travel-speak to pick up.
Did you read the article and can point out which part of the specific method would not work in the UK?
There is nothing in the outlined strategy that would be made unworkable. You may reach a different value-engineered point, and it explicitly mentions cargo trains as well.
The long term commitment by the government works for Switzerland because the government is a permanent national unity coalition that has not changed in party composition for over 50 years. The fact that the people in power when things are planned will be the same that reap the rewards 4 elections later helps align politics for long term issues.
This reads as "the political parties in the UK are fully dysfunctional since they cannot plan for checks notes a decade ahead in country where average life expectancy is checks notes 81 years and the country itself has been around for checks notes 1500 years"
Last time the proportion of the Federal Council was changed was 20-ish years ago, not over 50. But your broader point still stands as it's roughly the same parties (the "magic formula" is roughly proportional to the proportion of parties in the national council)(but also takes into account gender and language/region).
They pushed Pocket in a weird way but otherwise it was a useful tool for article readers. I found it much better not to have to read on my phone/laptop but using an e-reader through stuff I saved on Pocket.
It felt very much going back to read a newspaper of interesting articles. I wonder what replacement will be available on Kobos.
It does, for anybody who studied math at the level you need to understand Attention (some linear algebra).
Please no low effort comments, ask if you don't have the math background and people will gladly help. This is sum notation, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summation
No, it doesn't really clarify things. I had the best linear algebra grades in my year at my university, and if you don't know anything about kernels, this is not helpful (what are xi and yi in the first place?).
However, what do you reckon the energy balance is for launching the 1 GW datacenter components into space and assembling it?
reply